Vromen Campus Politics

Campus politics, student societies and
social media
Brian D. Loader, Ariadne Vromen, Michael A.

Xenos, Holly Steel and Samuel Burgum
Abstract
The university campus has often been seen as an important site for the politicization
of young people. Recent explanations for this have focused attention upon the role
of the student union as a means to enable a ‘critical mass’ of previously isolated
individuals to produce social networks of common interest. What is missing from
these accounts, however, and what this article seeks to address, is how these factors
actually facilitate the development of political norms and the active engagement of
many students. Drawing upon qualitative data from three countries we argue that it
is the milieu of the smaller student societies that are crucial for facilitating the
habitus of the student citizen. They provide the space for creative development and
performance of the political self, affiliations to particular fields and access to cultural
and social capital. Moreover, we contend that these processes of politicization are
increasingly enacted through social media networks that foreground their impor-
tance for developing political habitus in the future.
Keywords: citizen norms, young people, political engagement, student politics, social
media, social capital
The university campus has long been regarded as an important space for
enabling the engagement of students with politics and their participation in
civil society more widely. For aspiring career politicians it represents the first
significant rung on the ladder for professional recognition and future advance-
ment. At least since the 1960s student politics has also been regarded as a
crucible for student protest and social movement activism worldwide. The
university campus also provides an important space for non-politicos to be
exposed to political ideas and debates and a range of opportunities to engage
in civic activities more broadly. Little surprise, then, that scholars have conse-
quently been interested to explain the role played by universities in the forma-
tive development of the political norms and citizenship practices of their
students.An insightful contribution to this debate by Nick Crossley and Joseph
Ibrahim (2012) argues that the bounded environment of the university pro-
vides the ideal location for a ‘critical mass’ of previously isolated individuals
The Sociological Review, Vol. 63, 820–839 (2015) DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12220
© 2014 The Authors. The Sociological Review © 2014 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review. Published
by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, 02148,
USA.
Campus politics, student societies and social media
who share a common interest in politics to combine through the formation of

social networks. More specifically, as Crossley (2008) suggested in an earlier
article, the university campus provides a range of opportunities for students to
meet and share their interests (including halls of residences and courses), but
it is the Students’ Union that is the most likely mechanism for political sociali-
zation and networking.
These persuasive assertions that critical mass, networking and the Students’
Union are important explanatory variables for student politicization make a
valuable contribution to our current understanding. However, they tell us less
about how these factors actually facilitate the development of political norms
and the active civic engagement of many students. Moreover, a growing lit-
erature, largely associated with theorists of late-modernity, has suggested that
the political attitudes of young people can increasingly be characterised as
reflexive individualism (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991), self-actualizing (Bennett,
1998), expert citizens (Norris, 1999) or ‘everyday makers’ (Bang, 2004), all of
which mark a departure from the traditional dutiful norms of citizenship
(Dalton, 2008). If we are to critically assess the role of the campus for shaping
the political and civic norms of students we need therefore to be clear about
what kind of politics we are referring to when we talk about politicization?
Finally, despite foregrounding social networks, Crossley and Ibrahim make no
reference to the potential role of social media platforms such as Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube, as a means to stimulate participatory practices and
influence political socialization. Through their interactive, collaborative and
user-generated content capacities these social networking media are seen by
some scholars to be increasingly important for the development of the politi-
cal norms and practices of young people (Bennett, 2003). Consequently, we
believe their importance for student politicization deserves closer scrutiny.
This article draws upon an analysis of new data from three countries (UK,
Australia and USA) to explore processes of politicization through an exami-
nation of the increasingly digitally mediated networks of student groups.
Moving beyond the generalized focus of the Students’ Union we go further in
this article and argue that it is the myriad of student societies supported by the
Students’ Union that are a primary locus for politicization. Student societies
provide the resources necessary for mobilizing students and sustaining their
interests as well as enabling the development of organizational skills necessary
for a future lifetime of civic engagement. But they also crucially provide the
networked milieu whereby young students can explore a range of contempo-
rary political practices and repertoires. That is, they enable students to develop
what Pierre Bourdieu might have described as the habitus of the young citizen
(Bourdieu, 1977). As such it enables us to see politicization as an experiential
learning process rather than being formally acquired through instruction and
teaching. Formal knowledge of politics is less important than how the political
habitus is acquired through performance. It is our contention that we would
expect to see social media increasingly informing the political habitus of
students through their involvement in student society networks.
© 2014 The Authors. The Sociological Review © 2014 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 821
Brian D. Loader, Ariadne Vromen, Michael A. Xenos, Holly Steel and Samuel Burgum
Whilst much of the previous research of student politics has focused upon
student protests this is not primarily the focus of our analysis here. Instead, we
are interested to explore, the nature of the role of student societies in the
formative development of political norms through the everyday lived experi-
ence of the students; whether we can detect the emergence of new political
norms within student politicization; what role social media may play in
politicalization processes; and whether these factors could be commonly iden-
tified in the UK, Australia and the USA despite cultural differences and
institutional contexts that would give greater credence to their significance.We
addressed these questions by conducting a small exploratory study comprising
a number of focus groups in these countries during late 2012 and early 2013
with students belonging to a range of societies. The results will be considered
more fully later in the article but first we need to consider in a little more detail
the literature on student socialization, new political norms and social media
participatory culture.
The student society, socialization and habitus
Political norms are of course acquired to some extent by individuals through

a range of pre-university experiences and socialization agencies such as
parents, schools and neighbourhood. Nonetheless, as Crossley and Ibrahim
have argued, the university provides a significant site for the politicization of
students by enabling ‘like-minded actors to find one another and form bonds
that will support collective action; that is to say, to form dense and multiplex
networks’ (Crossley and Ibrahim, 2012: 609). These networks, we argue, are
both increasingly supported by social media platforms and manifest them-
selves through student union societies. How are we then to understand how
students within these societies might become politicized? More specifically, we
may ask what is the nature of the role of student societies in the formative
development of political norms and practices?
Student societies are an important dimension of the student experience of
campus life. They represent the wide cultural interests of the student body and
provide a focal point for many students to meet others with similar affinities.
For those with a political enthusiasm they may be a point of entry to the active
participation in a field hitherto rarely accessible to the adolescent. Student
societies also provide an opportunity for those with latent political interests to
explore its potential relevance for their lives. Supported through the Students’
Union, these societies are primarily run by and for the students themselves. As
a consequence, this enables their members to engage and experiment with a
range of activities which inform both their acquisition of knowledge, skills and
understanding but also their values and normative perspectives. It is important
to recognize at this stage that not all students engage with student societies to
the same extent any more than students in general can be said to be highly
politicized. However, our contention is that the role of student societies for the
822 © 2014 The Authors. The Sociological Review © 2014 The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review
politicization of those students with a manifest or latent interest in politics may

be highly significant.
Traditionally the academic literature on processes whereby young people
become socialized into their political attitudes and behaviour has focused
upon how values are ‘transmitted’ by parents or are learnt through ‘formal’
education, in civics classes, for example (Jennings et al., 2009; Plutzer, 2004).
This is a view of politics as being handed down through a process that is
external to the recipients. It is often associated with a dutiful conception of
citizenship whereby the young person is expected to acquire a set of appro-
priate practices and knowledge to actively participate in democratic society.
Akin to this somewhat essentialist notion of the socialization of the dutiful
citizen is the concurrent narrow conceptualization of politics itself. Typically,
politics becomes defined in relation to mainstream institutions (Parliaments,
nation-states) and practices (voting, party membership) with little reference
to how young people themselves either experience these or indeed may
acquire alternative conceptions of what social issues matter to them personally
and how they might engage with these outwith formal politics (Marsh et al.,
2007).
More recently it is possible to discern alternative views of political sociali-
zation – more sympathetic to our own approach – that both consider the
concept of politics to be much broader so as to encompass the lived experience
of diverse young citizens and also regards the young person as a more active
agent involved in their own political awareness and development (Lee et al.,
2012; McDevitt and Chaffee, 2002). How they feel and talk about, as well as
relate to politics is contingent upon their lived experience and shaped through
interaction with agents, institutions and social networks. It is a perspective that
regards socialization as an experiential learning process where the subject is
continually mutually adjusting their values, habits and language through
complex combinations of peer networks, media, family and formal education.
This view of political socialization as practised and actualized attitudes and
dispositions has a clear affinity to Bourdieu’s notion of habitus. Whilst
Bourdieu himself never undertook systematic analysis of campus politics his
conceptual tools of habitus, capital and fields can, we believe, be adapted to
explore the political socialization, acquisition of skills and resources and the
civic engagement of students. Bourdieu thought of habitus as the largely
unconscious assimilation of values, conventions, habits, and rules that give rise
to social practices: ‘An acquired system of generative schemes objectively
adjusted to the particular conditions in which it is constituted’ (Bourdieu,
1977: 87). Student societies, we want to suggest, can be seen to provide an
important social space for generating and maintaining a political habitus that
does not have to be reinvented or created afresh. Instead, its cultivation over
time through student societies provides the social organization – conventions,
habits, rules – which enable new members to occupy roles and engage in social
action. This does not mean that individual actors cannot reinterpret or that
these social structures are unchanging and deterministic in their effects.
Indeed, one of its strengths as an explanatory model is that it has the potential
to provide a social context for the political habitus to evolve in relation to
wider socio-cultural changes and digitally mediated politics.
Following Bourdieu’s approach, it is through their close association with
particular ‘fields’ that student societies enable the production of the habitus
and access to capitals – economic, cultural, social – which can be seen as
resources and assets for their development. The fields of politics, environ-
mentalism, sport, education and others, all in their different ways provide
reference to appropriate institutions, content, rules, role models, discourses
and practices that are both the product of habitus and its generator. Like-
wise, by their behaviour, manner of communication, interaction, humour and
the like, inculcated by the student societies, students bring their habitus into
being and vice versa. It is an environment where they may develop uncon-
sciously the habits of the political self through the opportunity to play,
perform, experiment and innovate: in Bourdieu’s sense they are able to
realize their own ‘deportments’ – attitudes, values and feelings and emotions.
Of particular value is that this understanding allows us to consider that
habitus is not determined as a consequence of training the novice student
but is instead the outcome of social practices produced both through inter-
actions within a networked community and in relation to the social world of
the campus outside.
Consequently the student society can be seen to represent a transitional
space for the student between adolescence and their prospective occupational
fields. For Bourdieu, the development of an appropriate habitus and the accu-
mulation of appropriate forms of ‘capital’ is crucial for providing the competi-
tive advantage which enable the individual to succeed over their rivals and
position themselves within their destined hierarchical fields. Bourdieu identi-
fied a number of different types of capital most notable of which are economic
capital (wealth) and cultural capital (knowledge, education, taste). Seemingly
less important but still significant were social capital (the value of networks of
significant others) and symbolic capital (status and prestige). Political capital
he regarded as a form of symbolic capital.
In Bourdieu’s work the ‘political field’ is somewhat narrowly defined in
conventional terms as the mainstream political institutions (parties) and
practices, inhabited by career politicians and professional public servants
(2005). Nonetheless, he also refers to the wider ‘field of power’ that acts to
shape and influence all cultural fields. Political socialization, in the broader
understanding we employ here, is experienced through student societies by
the embodiment and enactment of habitus and the procurement of
capital. These not only facilitate social advantage within these semi-
autonomous fields but crucially enable the actor to convert these skills
and resources and enable them to participate in other fields. Thus habitus
and capital relevant for political and civic engagement in one field may be
convertible for active participation in other fields and act to shape the field
of politics itself.
Emerging political norms?
One of the criticisms of Bourdieu’s work is that it is too closely attached to a

French cultural structure that may not be relevant to other countries and is
outdated by changes to the political norms of many young people in late
modern societies (Bennett et al., 2009). It is important, therefore, that we
consider these assertions of emergent political attitudes for politicization and
how comparable they might be between societies with similar democratic
traditions. Whilst differing in detail, a number of commentators, either directly
connected with late-modern theories of social change (Beck, 1994; Giddens,
1991) or drawing upon their propositions (Bang, 2004, 2011; Bennett et al.,
2011), have outlined ideal type characterizations of new political identities
particularly associated with young people in post-industrial democracies.
Lance Bennett, for example, has described the emergence of ‘self-actualizing
citizens’ (AC) who can be distinguished from traditional ‘dutiful citizens’ (DC)
(Bennett, 1998; Bennett et al., 2011; Bennett, 2008a). The former are less likely
than their dutiful colleagues to join political organizations, vote in elections,
have a strong sense of duty to engage in civic life, follow the news, and hold
their political and civic leaders in high regard. Instead, ACs are said to be more
motivated by ‘lifestyle politics’ of ethical consumerism, social movement activ-
ism and loose networking increasingly through new media. In similar vein
Henrik Bang maintains that we can witness the emergence of ‘everyday
makers’ whose political norms are formed through a ‘lived experience’ often
felt to have little connection to conventional mainstream politics of parties,
voting and politicians (Bang, 2011). Everyday makers are reflexive individuals
who engage with politics on an ad hoc basis according to how it relates to their
life projects at that time. Indeed, a defining aspect of these models of new
political norms is the engagement with politics through innovative repertoires
that are communicative and interactive and frequently conducted through
social networks rather than as a consequence of the proselytizing of formal
organizations such as political parties or trades unions. We were therefore
interested to search for evidence of these political norms associated with
self-actualizing young citizens and everyday makers in the campus politics we
explored through a range of student societies. That is, we sought to enquire
whether the contemporary habitus engendered by student societies might
promote either dutiful or self-actualizing political norms?
Social media and the networked student citizen
Finally, in an age of ubiquitous digital communications, attention in recent

years has become focused upon the potential role of social media for influ-
encing the political norms and civic engagement of young people (Banaji and
Buckingham, 2013; Bennett, 2008b; Loader, 2007; Loader et al., 2014). More
specifically for our focus here on student politics we believe social media may
be important for three primary reasons. First, the cost effective access to social
networking platforms and functional capacities to instantaneously communi-
cate and share digital content makes it a valuable tool for student societies to
organize themselves. Second, social networking enables a small critical mass of
society members to access cultural and social capital through wider networks.
This is sometimes referred to as bridging capital acquired through weak ties.
Third, the political domain itself has become significantly influenced by social
media with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube postings prompting news coverage
and becoming a commonplace feature of discussions with politicians and
celebrities tweeting their latest thoughts and ripostes. This raises questions
about whether the effective use of social media networks may significantly
influence the accumulation of cultural and social capitals and act to shape the
political habitus of students.
The study
To examine how politically and civically engaged students understand their
own sense of political and civic identity we undertook a qualitative study of
existing affinity student societies on three university campuses. We also
adopted a comparative approach that comprised the advanced democratic
societies of the USA, Australia and the UK in each of which young people are
known to be comparatively high adopters of social media.1 This enabled us to
explore whether the expected influence of social media upon the political
habitus of students through their networking activities in student societies was
national-context specific or more generalizable.
In-person focus groups were chosen as the closest means for us to record
qualitative political talk among student group members. As a means to
observe the development of political habitus over time in their ‘natural’ set-
tings they are, of course, limited in comparison to an in-depth ethnographic
study. Indeed, we would suggest that our strong indicative findings from this
small exploratory investigation could usefully be regarded as a justification for
just such an approach in the future. In the event, financial restrictions required
us to adopt focus groups in our attempt to discover how students themselves
talk about, experience and understand their political self. As Conover and
Searing suggest, focus groups are an ‘especially useful method for probing the
experience of everyday talk to better understand the motivations of citizens’
(Conover and Searing, 2005: 40). Within the group environment our intention
was to encourage the students to use their own language and ideas to express
their opinions, values and views about politics and civic engagement.
To examine political norms we selected societies according to four criteria:
first, those who might be more traditionally dutiful through their affiliation to
mainstream political parties; second, issue-based groups focused upon human
rights and social inequalities; third, societies closely associated with identity
politics; and, finally, a selection of what we term ‘civic’ societies with no explicit
Table 1 Focus group participants: type of group and country
Party Issue Identity Civic
Aus University Young Vinnies Shades SUTEKH

Liberal Club
USA College Habitat for AHANA Humans vs
Republicans Humanity Zombies
UK University Green Amnesty LGBQT Network Women’s Cricket
Party International Club
political affinities, typically involved in leisure or sporting interests. The deci-

sion to choose a sample of groups that covered a range of political and civic
norms was taken deliberately to enable us to illicit their diverse experiences of
politics and its potential for shaping their political habitus. The respective
groups are illustrated in Table 1.
In all, twelve focus groups were recruited, four in each country according to
the criteria outlined above. The range of societies chosen are typical of most
university campuses across the three countries.
Research assistants currently active as students were employed in each
location to recruit participants, and occasionally to facilitate discussion in the
groups. Discussion was guided in all groups by exploring a common set of
themes intended to elicit responses on the personal value of society member-
ship for political and civic deportments; attitudes to citizenship and politics;
and the influence of social media for political engagement. The focus groups
were all recorded and transcribed. The qualitative software programme Nvivo
was used to code the discussions according to the themes outlined above and
throughout the following analysis exemplar quotes are used as indicators of
salient responses. These are all anonymized but the distinctions between the
four different types of groups are identified.
Boundary building through student societies
What then can we discern about the role of student societies in the develop-
ment of political norms and practices of students? As the critical mass thesis
would suggest, our respondents did generally recognize the value of student
societies for social networking and cherished the opportunity they provided to
mix with similar-minded students who shared their interests. One of the most
pertinent findings, however, was the evident boundary work on the part of the
party groups which marked out their political habitus. This distinctiveness
manifested itself not only in terms of how they regarded their student society
as a means to enter the political field but also as a contrast to what they
regarded as the poor political acumen of other students. A typical response
which contextualized their society within the wider political field for example
was:
I’m interested in going into [politics] in the future, so being involved in it at

a local youth level is an effective mechanism of doing this . . . you do it
because it helps you get involved in the party later. (Party Aus)
Indeed, recruitment to their societies was often shaped by the objective of

attracting those they saw as potential life-long members and career politicians.
Membership size was less important than securing a small group of dedicated
members who were more likely to be emergent politicians and policy-makers.
One party respondent noted for example that:
We spend less of our efforts trying to pull people into the party who
otherwise wouldn’t be interested because at the end of the day, they’re
probably not going to be interested in the long run. (Party Aus)
Furthermore, they recognized that those new students with an existing or

latent interest in politics would be the ones to seek them out. Prior socializa-
tion through family and school were repeatedly mentioned as factors influ-
encing their own decision to join a party society.
Well my mum was a member of the Labour Party so I grew up watching

Question Time with her. She was always quite politically active. (Party UK)
Motivation to continue with membership, and even engage in organizing the

societies, centred on the opportunities it provided for a range of activities and
exchanges which facilitated their political habitus. These included debating
political issues and sharing a desire to campaign for their policies. In all three
party focus groups the passion to engage in politics and ‘make a difference’
was manifest.
That’s one of my motivations, to be around people who do want to talk

about these issues. Because even if you dislike the current situation, and a
lot of people do and we all do, by just saying it’s a terrible situation and then
not discussing it, not trying to do something about it, that’s not the way that
you change the world. (Party UK)
As anticipated, these groups could be seen to exhibit a conventional ‘dutiful’

understanding of citizenship, not only through their membership of a political
party, but also through their commitment to engage with mainstream politics
to enact their ideological perspectives.
I mean I guess in a democracy [. . .] it’s our duty to contribute to make our

voice be heard. (Party USA)
Indeed, so strong was this dutiful habitus that it acted as a further distin-
guishing characteristic for the party participants in our sample in that they
frequently asserted that non-party political students and groups failed to fully
understand the complexity of the political field; criticizing them for their lack
of knowledge about current affairs. When discussing the precarious nature of
graduate employment opportunities, for example, one party respondent
believed that:
across campus all students don’t see it [graduate employment] so much as

a political issue, ‘cause the lack of informed students on political issues is
absolutely detrimental. (Party USA)
Whilst this discourse of political expertise acted to reinforce their own sense of
political acumen it was also expressed as a frustration that non-party students
could be easily misinformed. Their own in-depth political understanding of the
‘facts’ might enable them to have political insight, the general student body
was more easily characterized by a ‘sound byte mentality’(Party USA). A
particularly clear illustration of this perceived boundary between party group
participants and other students was provided by reference to a controversial
speech made by the Australian Prime Minster Julia Gillard just prior to our
focus group discussions. Gillard accused the then opposition leader Tony
Abbott of sexism and misogyny in a speech which, whilst criticized by many
Australian journalists, received a much more favourable response through the
Internet. This populist support for Gillard was used by one of the Australian
party participants as evidence that students are generally attracted by such
sensational storylines rather than an in-depth understanding of the political
issues. One remarked that:
because all students aren’t politically interested, they’re only at best

keeping a vague eye on what’s happening in the news, so things like the
Gillard speech are so attractive and so much more easy to get invested in
because it’s really easy to boil that down to a simplicity: this guy’s misogy-
nist (Party Aus)
As a Liberal Party student society member we might detect a degree of

defensiveness on the part of the respondent but that does not detract from the
more general assertion that other students do not understand politics to the
same level as themselves.
This distancing themselves from other students can be seen to enable the
party societies to provide a space for the development of their political
habitus, but interestingly it also facilitated reciprocity from other non-party
groups. In discussions with these latter societies, frustrations with student party
politics was frequently voiced. For instance, one of the respondents remarked
about the political activities of politicos at election time:
I view this whole thing as a bit of a circus or a sandpit for those people who
want to go onto it later on in life. (Issue, Aus)
This view of party students and their activities was repeated as a correspond-
ingly negative perspective of party politics by several of the non-party stu-
dents. In contrast to the politicos who only wanted to engage in talk many
non-party groups prided themselves as people who got things done.
I’m exceptionally cynical about all those people who yell about their politi-
cal views instead of doing things . . . So our group is very much about
knuckling down and getting things done . . . (Issue, Aus)
These boundaries between party societies and many of the other students
appears to mirror strongly the gulf between career politicians and those they
represent, which has become such a central aspect of debates about the
current state of advanced contemporary democracies (Hay, 2007). The albeit
limited evidence from our exploratory study suggests that the university
campus may play a significant role through student societies in building the
barriers that later separate career politicians from their electorates. In part, of
course, these may be reinforcing attitudes and behaviour that commence
earlier in the life course. Nonetheless, the very strength of student groups to
provide a protective milieu for the development of a dutiful political habitus
suited to the political field of conventional politics may also act as a powerful
mechanism to isolate them from the lived experience and views of other
citizens.
Towards self-actualizing citizens?

If we now turn to consider the other student societies in our study we might
ask what was revealed in discussions with them about their political attitudes?
Did for example their proclaimed action orientation to ‘get things done rather
than talk’ suggest a different kind of political engagement? One perhaps closer
to Pippa Norris’s model of ‘engaging in civic life by recycling the garbage,
mobilizing on the internet, and volunteering at women’s shelters or aids hos-
pices’ (Norris, 2002). More specifically, could their attitudes and activities be
characterized as self-actualizing citizenship as depicted by Bennett (Bennett
et al., 2011)? Here the picture was more complex than the dutiful party stu-
dents. Certainly many exhibited an aversion to mainstream party membership.
Interestingly one respondent, invoking the language of the consumer,
described their group affiliation as to a brand in contrast to the ideology of
party politics – loyalty to a brand being more contingent upon lifestyle and
self-regarding. Guided more by ‘a personal philosophy’ she believed that these
would be placed in jeopardy by the discipline required from party allegiance.
When asked about their interest in current affairs and political issues,
however, there were more subtle differences between the groups. Whilst the
party groups tended to cite examples of legislative politics, party campaigning
and political speeches, respondents from the other groups would be more
likely to refer to issues of personal interest to them. As expected, the interest
and identity groups foregrounded their particular agendas initially but this was
often broadened later to encompass a wider range of current affairs. The civic
groups, despite not identifying themselves as overtly political, also exhibited
experiential interests in political issues:
Personally I’ve been following the same sex marriage bill. It’s quite inter-
esting, just the debates surrounding it . . . I would like to marry my girlfriend
at some point in time. Who lets me do that? I would quite like to find out.
(Civic UK)
Even in the case of the issue groups who were often affiliated to a national or
international organization, such as the Catholic Church in the case of the
Vinnies or Amnesty International, their motivation for engagement was often
couched in a personalized ethic. Interestingly, in the case of the Vinnies
respondents did acknowledge that some of their former members had become
senior politicians and thereby entered the political field through this pathway.
Nonetheless, their approach to politics can be seen more as an individual
(non-party membership) lifestyle perspective that is strongly informed by an
action orientation. Unlike the party groups whose recruitment to their soci-
eties was more narrowly directed towards career politics, the interest and
identity groups attempted to be more inclusive and to widen recruitment.
Having a fun time through activities such events, volunteering and specific
campaigns was seen as the best way to engage and network with the wider
student community rather than ‘thrust opinions down people’s throats’.
The dutiful and self-actualizing political orientations of the respective
group respondents was further revealed through discussion of what they
regarded as a ‘good citizen’. For the party groups, emphasis was placed upon
the duty to vote and ‘to be informed’ about issues. For the non-party groups,
voting as a citizenship activity was not as highly regarded as the self-
actualizing experience of doing a project. As one Identity group respondent
put it:
I guess to me Habitat’s just like, you’re on the front line, so you’re trying to
. . . solve a specific problem where if you’re voting you’re trying to really
solve all of the problems by organizing the government, but you’re not
really at the frontlines, you’re not really making the decisions, . . . you’re just
getting somebody else to represent you to make the decisions for you.
Despite these dutiful and self-actualizing distinctions expressed about the

nature of a ‘good citizen’, what was most striking about the responses from the
groups on this issue was not their differences but rather what they shared in
common. The most typical type of response from all the groups was expressed
as a dutiful motivation to ‘give something back’ to the community, or less well
off, through voluntary activities. Such actions included a range of things from
being law-abiding and picking up your litter to money raising and engaging in
voluntary work. Such requirements might form the content of any civics
education curriculum or be expressed by previous generations. Thus whilst
self-actualizing norms may indeed be seen to be shaping the political habitus
of many educated young citizens who are more sceptical of conventional
mainstream politics it would be a mistake, on the basis of our exploration at
least, to suggest that this requires them to abandon dutiful notions of citizen-
ship altogether. Instead, a more nuanced picture emerges whereby non-
politico civic respondents help out at polling stations as a way of giving back
to the community as a good citizen; where political party members regard
volunteering in civic groups as citizen action; Identity groups share with party
and interest groups a view of politics as active engagement; and where civic
group respondents can see their activities as an embodiment of the good
citizen.
Social media politics
Turning now to examine our third line of enquiry we explored with the
students their use of new media communications technologies in their lives
and whether they thought it influenced engagement with politics. All these
students had grown up with the Internet and treated email and websites as
everyday forms of communication and sites for information retrieval. Our
particular interest, however, was in the social media platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube with their affordances for networking, sharing
and rapid messaging. All of these traits had been demonstrated in many parts
of the world including the student protests in the UK, the Occupy movement
and the uprisings in the Middle East where predominantly young activists had
used social media as a highly effective means to organize large-scale protests
and share their messages almost instantaneously. Detailed analyses of these
events by Bennett and Segerberg (Bennett et al., 2014; Bennett and Segerberg,
2012) have advanced the proposition that they represent new forms of politi-
cal mobilization through the communicative practices of social media which
they describe as ‘connective action’. Moreover, mainstream politicians and
celebrities are also increasingly using social media as a means to engage in
political discussion. Consequently we wanted to find out both what our groups
thought of these developments and also gain some idea of how it was influ-
encing their own political habitus.
In general the groups used some combination of email, Facebook and
Twitter in their communications with members. Only a couple of groups had
websites and one of these had noticed a move towards social media. Facebook
was the primary platform recognized by respondents as it was acknowledged
to be ubiquitous, easy to use and enabled fast and widespread communication.
A common theme was that committees found themselves communicating to a
membership larger than the number who physically attended meetings and
events. One participant remarked about group postings and emails,
for the people who come it’s obviously an open invitation to attend a
meeting. But, for example, I’m on the [Oxfam] mailing list and I support
what they do, I read it, but I don’t go to their meetings. (UK Issue)
Another participant noted, ‘we contact a lot more people than we actually see’
(UK Civic). Little surprise, then, that our groups recognized the value of social
media and e-mails more generally for facilitating connective engagement with
both active members and a much larger network of latent activists. These
wider participants may be close to what Amnå and Ekman describe as
‘standby’ citizens ‘who stay alert, keep themselves informed about politics by
bringing up political issues in everyday life contexts, and are willing and able
to participate if needed’ (Amnå and Ekman, 2013: 2).
Besides the use of social media for organizational purposes, the students we
talked to also expressed a positive acknowledgement of its value for political
engagement. Such endorsements were not unconditional and frequently mani-
fested critical evaluations based upon their experience. Many pointed to the
advantages of social media for generating political discussion in the first place
but this was often matched by questions about the ‘quality’ of online politics.
As one remarked:
Anyone can put an opinion on Facebook but that doesn’t make it a well
informed opinion. (Issue USA)
The very ease of access and the potential rapid and widespread ‘viral’ dissemi-
nation of content led to expressions of concern that social media could amplify
misinformation. ‘Facts’, it was claimed, could be misconstrued, taken out of
context and be misused. This familiar accusation of social media as a threat to
democratic politics by encouraging ‘slacktivism’ was illustrated by reference to
examples such as the well-publicized KONY 2012 campaign. Produced by the
charity Invisible Children, Inc. KONY 2012 was a video film intended to raise
support for the arrest of Joseph Kony for war crimes. Once posted online the
video spread virally on social media and became particularly noted for attract-
ing the attention of young people. A report by the Internet Research Group
Pew estimated that over half the US population of young adults had accessed
the video at some time. (http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Kony-2012-
Video/Main-report.aspx). Equally significant, however, was the level of criti-
cism aimed at the video campaign for oversimplifying and distorting the
complex reality of the situation in that part of Africa. This contention was
picked up by one of our respondents.
. . . the Kony 2012 video which was an example of people being politically
engaged but politically engaged in terms of looking at a video, watching the
first five minutes, going, ‘Yeah, this is kind of interesting’, posting that on
their Facebook with like and encouraging comment and then just spreading
it all over. And that’s politically engaged. Unfortunately, it was also wrong,
like it was identifiably and incurably wrong in many instances, which came
out over the next month or so . . . (Party Aus)
Typically these types of accusations of slackivism were voiced by those party

members and others who assumed a more dutiful conception of engagement
associated with a political model of informed rational deliberation. Once again
we can discern a difference in approach to political engagement on the part of
the party students in their attitudes towards social media. Whilst recognizing
its value as an organizing tool they tended to be much more sceptical of its use
as a means to talk ‘serious’ politics.
. . . for me social media is not grassroots politics, it’s sitting in your chair, you
know, you can be ranting about your ideology and doing anything like that,
I think it’s very helpful, a tool for organizing people together, but if you’re
not willing to get up off your chair, get off your smart phone and actually go
talk about the issues with someone and really change someone’s mind,
‘cause no tweet is going to change someone’s mind, let’s be honest, no
hashtag is gonna, ‘Oh, I didn’t think of it like that. Oh this is really inter-
esting.’ No, it really takes some personal integrity and motivation to go out
there and do it. (Party USA)
Many of the other students, however, were more receptive to the use of social
media for following political events. They were more relaxed about the quality
of discussions and instead emphasized the ‘democratic’ nature of the medium
for raising debate. Their lived experience was frequently online and they
valued the immediacy of social media for raising issues and sharing ideas.
I had to try and explain how to do Facebook based politics discussion with
my mum the other day and she just couldn’t understand that you can have
a conversation with so many people all at once. And I think it’s the attitude
to the medium that is different. Not necessarily the opinion on politics but
whether I am much more comfortable spending a huge amount of time on
YouTube or something than my mum would be to learn information . . .
(Civic UK)
Most strikingly they appeared more open than their dutiful colleagues to a
variety of modes of political engagement evidenced through social media.
These included narratives and complex issues that could be visualized through
graphs, cartoons and videos and could ‘spark’ debates.The use of memes which
had a ‘comic edge’ were seen as an effective way of raising serious issues. Such
communication could be incorporated into a personalized presentation of
their political self through sharing images, posting a status, exhibiting a liking
for a story or commenting on a discussion. In contrast to serious political talk
encountered in a dutiful public sphere, these forms of mediated political
engagement can be interpreted as more expressive of playful, emotional,

personalized and disruptive forms of participation.
Regardless of the varied approaches noted what was most clear from our
focus group discussions was the important role played by social media in the
communicative experience of our students. Moreover, in their respective cau-
tionary ways this included accessing, sharing and more rarely posting political
content. Student politics, judging from our exploratory study, can be seen to be
increasingly carried out through the mediated social networks facilitated by
social media platforms. This in turn has significance for the role of student
societies as facilitators of political habitus and enabling the accumulation of
capital. The influence of new media technologies upon the development of
social capital has been one of the central debates amongst scholars since the
widespread adoption of the Internet. Robert Putnam remained sceptical that
online social networks would do much to counter what he regarded as the
erosion of social capital and the decline of civic engagement in American
society (Putnam, 2000). Others, however, have maintained that social media
networks facilitate wider access to social capital than was previously possible
(Rainie and Wellman, 2012). It thereby enables students to more easily
acquire social capital beyond the social networks of the student groups and to
build additional specialized networks for themselves. Consequently, both the
student society and the networked individual may benefit from the mixture of
strong local bonds and diverse weaker ties provided by social media. More-
over, the accumulation of political and symbolic capital that Bourdieu associ-
ated with success in the political field may also be increasingly influenced by
the digital literacy of those wishing to take up a career in politics. Aeron Davis
and Emily Seymour (2010) have pointed to the importance of what they
describe as mainstream ‘media capital’ for the competitive advantage of poli-
ticians but we would contend that this needs to be supplemented by under-
standing how the university campus plays a crucial role in the construction of
a political habitus increasingly informed by digital networking. The acquisition
of networking competencies is not only important for politicos, of course.
Effective political engagement by citizens and activists is also likely to be
significantly influenced by the accumulation of social and cultural capital
through the maintenance of status profiles, management of reputation and
social networking.
Conclusion
We have attempted in this article to contribute to debates about whether and
in what ways universities may be significant for politicizing students. By
addressing Crossley and Ibrahim’s suggestion that critical mass and social
networks are important explanatory variables we have explored deeper in
search of more specific factors influencing the political socialization of stu-
dents. Whilst acknowledging that not all students become interested in politics
at university, or indeed engage in civic activities, it is our contention that for
those that do the role of the student societies is crucial in facilitating political
attitudes and deportments. These groups, often supported by the umbrella
Students’ Union, provide the focal point for new students to follow their
interests (latent or manifest) and be recruited into an existing social network.
Whilst acknowledging some limitations we nonetheless believe Bourdieu’s
concept of habitus is helpful in enabling us to understand how these student
societies act to provide a means for students to experientially develop their
political talk, values, emotions and performances. Student societies are thereby
generative of political practices within particular fields and further provide
access to the cultural and social capital that can inform the nature of their
political participation and civic engagement later in life.
For those students with a strong existing interest in politics, they are likely to
be drawn to the mainstream ‘party groups’ and/or to special interest groups
often with national or international organizing bodies. Other ‘civic’ student
societies were, however, also seen to provide opportunities for politicization
through discussions and engagement but in ways that they themselves would not
necessarily regard as ‘political’. Our focus group discussions revealed very
clearly the playing out of social practices on campus that distinguished those
students associated with the political field and others already disaffected by, or
sceptical of, mainstream politics and its acolytes. For the political party groups
this division often revealed itself by reference to a more serious understanding
of politics and ‘facts’ in comparison to other students who they believed engaged
in misinformation and generalizations. When asked about their views of citizen-
ship they tended to reply with dutiful conceptions of obeying the law and voting.
In contrast, the habitus of the other societies as revealed through our
discussions can be said to display more self-actualizing characteristics of civic
engagement as outlined in the typologies by Bennett. They did not tend to
want to join parties but instead were more driven by active engagement in
projects. Whilst the politicos may talk politics these other groups often prided
themselves on actively doing something about what they perceived as prob-
lems, whether it was housing, migration, poverty or the like. Interestingly,
however, when asked what a good citizen might be, they frequently provided
both dutiful responses concerned with voting and ‘giving back’ to the commu-
nity as well as broader self-actualizing notions. Consequently, whilst many
late-modern theories of reflexive individualism and self-actualizing political
norms may point to important emergent traits, as simple binaries they may
exaggerate the demise of the dutiful social obligations of young people.
As anticipated, the practices of organizing, sharing information and social
networking of the student societies were all significantly mediated by social
media technologies. Facebook in particular was a platform that was almost
universally adopted. There was widespread recognition that social media was a
valuable means of coordinating the groups since it was both an everyday aspect
of their lived experience as well as all their fellow students. However, the idea
that these students were uncritical adopters was clearly not the case. They were
familiar with criticisms of online content as potentially biased, ill-informed and
sensational. Furthermore, they all recognized that the participative culture

afforded by social media may produce a low level of political engagement
characteristic of slacktivism. Strikingly, however, our respondents exhibited
marked differences in their views about how these factors might influence
political engagement. Once again the distinction between those students exhib-
iting a more dutiful habitus and those more expressive of self-actualizing norms
was clearly discernible, if not stark. The former tended to be far more dismissive
of social media, seeing it as a channel for trivializing political talk and appealing
to people’s emotions instead of providing a domain for ‘factual’ political delib-
eration. The latter, on the other hand, acknowledged such self-expression as
providing opportunities for more inclusive personal engagement over political
issues through a multitude of discursive styles.
The responses from our focus groups provide a rich insight into their
political attitudes. Whilst exploratory in nature this study provides support for
the contention that the university campus is indeed a significant space for the
politicization of young citizens, many of whom will go on to become influential
stakeholders in their respective democratic societies. It also foregrounds the
importance of the student society, increasingly mediated by social media, as a
loci for developing their political habitus. These insights are important for at
least two reasons that can inform further debate about the future direction of
our democracies. First, the well-documented recent concerns about the gap
between political representatives and their electorates in many democracies
can be clearly detected through an examination of the political habitus of
students. The critical distrust exhibited by many of our non-politico respond-
ents towards student politics was only matched by the disparaging scepticism
of the party groups about the competence of their fellow student citizens. This
suggests that our understanding of and attempts to re-engage citizens and
politicians should include the university campus as an important site for the
formative development of these political deportments. Second, social media
platforms are likely to play an increasingly significant domain for the political
messaging, discussion, disruption and the presentation of the political self.
Thus the accumulation of social and cultural capital through online social
networking is likely to become an important dimension of the political habitus
not just for competitive advantage in the field of mainstream politics, but also
for the activists engaged in connective action.
University of York Received 28 February 2014

University of Sydney Finally accepted 17 October 2014
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Warwick
Acknowledgements
This project was originally sponsored by the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney and
was later expanded to include the UK through funds from the Spencer Foundation.
Note
1 Regular usage of social media by young people in 2012 was respectively 80 per cent in USA, 94
per cent in UK (Pew Research, 2012), and over 90 per cent in Australia (Essential Media, 2012)
References
Amnå, E. and Ekman, J., (2013), ‘Standby citizens: diverse faces of political passivity’, European
Political Science Review, June: 1–21. doi:10.1017/S175577391300009X
Banaji, S. and Buckingham, D., (2013), The Civic Web: Young People, the Internet, and Civic
Participation (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and
Learning), 240, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-
Civic-Web-Participation-Foundation/dp/0262019647
Bang, H.P., (2004), ‘Culture governance: governing self-reflexive modernity’, Public Administra-
tion, 82 (1): 157–190. doi:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00389.x
Bang, H.P., (2011), ‘The politics of threats: late-modern politics in the shadow of neoliberalism’,
Critical Policy Studies, 5 (4): 434–448. doi:10.1080/19460171.2011.628065
Beck, U., (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.
Beck, U., (1994), ‘The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reflexive modernization’, in
Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (eds), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aes-
thetics in Modern Social Order, 1–55, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M. and Wright, D., (2009), Culture, Class,
Distinction, London: Routledge.
Bennett, W.L., (1998), ‘The uncivic culture and the communication, identity, rise of lifestyle
politics’, Political Science and Politics, 31 (4): 740–761.
Bennett, W.L., (2003), ‘Communicating global activism: strengths and vulnerabilites of networked
politics’, Information, Communication and Society, 6 (2): 143–168.
Bennett, W.L., (2008a), ‘Changing citizenship in the digital age’, in Bennett, W.L. (ed.), Civic Life
Online, 1–24, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bennett, W.L., (2008b), Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bennett, W.L. and Segerberg, A., (2012), ‘The logic of connective action’, Information, Commu-
nication and Society, 15 (5): 739–768. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Bennett, W.L., Segerberg, A. and Walker, S., (2014), ‘Organization in the crowd: peer production
in large-scale networked protests’, Information, Communication and Society, 17 (2): 232–260.
doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.870379
Bennett, W.L., Wells, C. and Freelon, D., (2011), ‘Communicating civic engagement: contrasting
models of citizenship in the youth web sphere’, Journal of Communication, 61 (5): 835–856.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01588.x
Bourdieu, P., (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press.
Bourdieu, P., (2005), ‘The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field’, in
Bensen, R. and Neveu, E. (eds), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, 29–47, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Conover, P. and Searing, D., (2005), ‘Studying “everyday political talk” in the deliberative system
– ProQuest’, Acta Politica. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.library
.usyd.edu.au/docview/217169999/141485D05B36B61850F/1?accountid=14757
Crossley, N., (2008), ‘Social networks and student activism: on the politicising effect of campus
connections’, The Sociological Review, 56 (1): 18–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00775.x
Crossley, N. and Ibrahim, J., (2012), ‘Critical mass, social networks and collective action: exploring
student political worlds’, Sociology, 46 (4): 596–612.
Dalton, R.J., (2008), ‘Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation’, Political
Studies, 56 (1): 76–98. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x
Davis, A. and Seymour, E., (2010), ‘Generating forms of media capital inside and outside a field:
the strange case of David Cameron in the UK political field’, Media, Culture and Society, 32 (5):
739–759. doi:10.1177/0163443710373951
Giddens, A., (1991), Modernity and Self Identity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hay, C., (2007), Why We Hate Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jennings, M.K., Stoker, L. and Bowers, J., (2009), ‘Politics across generations: family transmission
reexamined’, The Journal of Politics, 71 (03): 782. doi:10.1017/S0022381609090719
Lee, N.-J., Shah, D.V. and McLeod, J.M., (2012), ‘Processes of political socialization: a communi-
cation mediation approach to youth civic engagement’, Communication Research, 40 (5): 669–
697. doi:10.1177/0093650212436712
Loader, B.D., (2007), Young Citizens in the Digital Age:Political Engagement, Young People and
New Media, London: Routledge.
Loader, B.D., Vromen, A. and Xenos, M.A. (eds), (2014), The Networked Young Citizen, New
York: Routledge.
Marsh, D., O’Toole, T. and Jones, S., (2007), Young People and Politics in the UK, Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
McDevitt, M. and Chaffee, S., (2002), ‘From top-down to trickle-up influence: revisiting assump-
tions about the family in political socialization’, Political Communication, 19 (3): 281–301.
doi:10.1080/01957470290055501
Norris, P. (ed.), (1999), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Norris, P., (2002), Democratic Pheonix: Reinventing Democratic Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Plutzer, E., (2004), ‘Becoming a habitual voter: inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood’,
American Political Science Review, 96 (01): 41–56. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004227
Putnam, R., (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Rainie, L. and Wellman, B., (2012), Networked: The New Social Operating System, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.

Vromen Campus Politics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vromen Campus Politics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Campus politics, student societies and

Brian D. Loader, Ariadne Vromen, Michael A.

who share a common interest in politics to combine through the formation of

The student society, socialization and habitus

Political norms are of course acquired to some extent by individuals through

politicization of those students with a manifest or latent interest in politics may

Emerging political norms?

One of the criticisms of Bourdieu’s work is that it is too closely attached to a

Social media and the networked student citizen

Finally, in an age of ubiquitous digital communications, attention in recent

Table 1 Focus group participants: type of group and country

Party Issue Identity Civic

Aus University Young Vinnies Shades SUTEKH

political affinities, typically involved in leisure or sporting interests. The deci-

Boundary building through student societies

I’m interested in going into [politics] in the future, so being involved in it at

Indeed, recruitment to their societies was often shaped by the objective of

Furthermore, they recognized that those new students with an existing or

Well my mum was a member of the Labour Party so I grew up watching

Motivation to continue with membership, and even engage in organizing the

That’s one of my motivations, to be around people who do want to talk

As anticipated, these groups could be seen to exhibit a conventional ‘dutiful’

I mean I guess in a democracy [. . .] it’s our duty to contribute to make our

across campus all students don’t see it [graduate employment] so much as

because all students aren’t politically interested, they’re only at best

As a Liberal Party student society member we might detect a degree of

Towards self-actualizing citizens?

Despite these dutiful and self-actualizing distinctions expressed about the

Social media politics

Typically these types of accusations of slackivism were voiced by those party

engagement can be interpreted as more expressive of playful, emotional,

sensational. Furthermore, they all recognized that the participative culture

University of York Received 28 February 2014

You might also like